Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
what is your metric for outperformed

return on capital
volume of output
value of output

at the moment you seem to be looking at volume of outputs which is nonsensical

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben
It was the biggest chemical company in the world, and one of the largest corporations

Business History: Complexities and Comparisons: Page 112-113
https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...page&q=IG farben largest in the world&f=false

https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...page&q=IG farben largest in the world&f=false
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Superior/inferior in what?

If we compare output the British industry appear overwhelmingly superior - by 1941 the British (excl. Empire) produced more of every significant category (planes, guns, tanks etc.) than the entire Axis combined!

I do not negate the ingenuity of German industry, but the German economy simply wasn't capable of going to total war economy until it was too late (1942-) and then had to resort to slave labour and extreme exploitation (and declining quality). The British economy went to total war economy from 1938/39 and stayed there for the duration of the war - without slave labour, extreme exploitation etc. You can say that they paid with their Empire, but after all that was cheap compared to the Germans who paid with their independence, dignity and national identity and pride.

But the post-war years made a significant difference. In Britain it was "relaxation time" upon the hard war years, and clapped out means of production were not renewed. In Germany there wasn't any means of production left (bombed or dismantled by the allies), and it was obvious to everybody that hard work was ahead. The reconstruction of Germany after WWII is one of the most impressive acts in history - in a few decades their economy was in a position better (both in relative and absolute terms) than before WWII! After WWI the Germans turned their frustration into political uproar - that didn't work. After WWII it was turned into silent and hard work - that worked.

They could only achieve that output with imported machine tool from Lend-Lease. Btw, German production was plagued by Nazi inefficient management. In ww1, they did not suffered much from Nazi-style management but from blockade.

Besides wartime, we should also look at the periods of 1900-1914 and 1919-1938, German chemical and engineering industries significantly outperformed Britain.
Chandler's Scale and Scope had a detailed description of how British engineering industries lagged behind German and American, especially high-tech industries before 1914. Their light, consumer goods and other non-engineering industries performed well and even competed well against the US. But the story was different for engineering and science-based sectors.
 
Britain was clearly behind. Why is no one discussing the huge German tank offenses in 1917 and 1918? The use of radar in the battle of Germany? The heavy bomber raids in the Second World War? The Cryptanalysis that cracked Mosley's codes?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Britain was clearly behind. Why is no one discussing the huge German tank offenses in 1917 and 1918? The use of radar in the battle of Germany? The heavy bomber raids in the Second World War? The Cryptanalysis that cracked Mosley's codes?

We are comparing industry, so we need to look more at peacetime commercial aspect, for example, the period 1900-1914
Soviet had lots of nice military kits, but its industrial technology and capability was clearly behind western hemisphere.

WW1: there were more french tanks
 
Britain was clearly behind. Why is no one discussing the huge German tank offenses in 1917 and 1918? The use of radar in the battle of Germany? The heavy bomber raids in the Second World War? The Cryptanalysis that cracked Mosley's codes?

Maybe HoI doesn't include them in the basic pack?:rolleyes:
 
We are comparing industry, so we need to look more at peacetime commercial aspect, for example, the period 1900-1914
Soviet had lots of nice military kits, but its industrial technology and capability was clearly behind western hemisphere.

WW1: there were more french tanks

4000 produced by the French
2,700 produced by the UK
80 produced by the USA
20 produced by Germany
6 produced by Italy

So your forward thinking tech savvy light-years in front mega death industrial giant Germany built more tanks than Italy, I suppose to be fair Italy and Russia combined too
 

Thomas1195

Banned
4000 produced by the French
2,700 produced by the UK
80 produced by the USA
20 produced by Germany
6 produced by Italy

So your forward thinking tech savvy light-years in front mega death industrial giant Germany built more tanks than Italy, I suppose to be fair Italy and Russia combined too

I said in most engineering sectors, not all. Britain performed better in motor industry so it would not be surprising they could produced more tanks. OTOH, Germany produced morre guns, rifles, machine guns, shells. Not to mention that Britain, an island, didn't have to spend steel and other material to build a fortification line.
 

hipper

Banned
They could only achieve that output with imported machine tool from Lend-Lease. Btw, German production was plagued by Nazi inefficient management. In ww1, they did not suffered much from Nazi-style management but from blockade.

Besides wartime, we should also look at the periods of 1900-1914 and 1919-1938, German chemical and engineering industries significantly outperformed Britain.
Chandler's Scale and Scope had a detailed description of how British engineering industries lagged behind German and American, especially high-tech industries before 1914. Their light, consumer goods and other non-engineering industries performed well and even competed well against the US. But the story was different for engineering and science-based sectors.

In one of those cheerful ironies of history the UK made heavy purchases of machine tools in 1939 & 1940 to expand industry, delivery of American machine tools peaked in 1940 and declined thereafter because the Americans thought that they would be more productive in America rather than the UK
anyway while the expansion of UK industry may have been dependent to a certain extent on imports of American machine tools they were bought and paid for rather than lend lease.

British war economy in hyper war has the details

cheers Hipper
 
We are comparing industry, so we need to look more at peacetime commercial aspect, for example, the period 1900-1914
Soviet had lots of nice military kits, but its industrial technology and capability was clearly behind western hemisphere.

And Germany had a huge section of its population in backbreaking agriculture that was far less productive than Britain's, plus a lower standard of living overall.
 
I said in most engineering sectors, not all. Britain performed better in motor industry so it would not be surprising they could produced more tanks. OTOH, Germany produced morre guns, rifles, machine guns, shells. Not to mention that Britain, an island, didn't have to spend steel and other material to build a fortification line.

While Britain's walls were traditionally wood, this is no longer true in 1914.
 

Deleted member 1487

And Germany had a huge section of its population in backbreaking agriculture that was far less productive than Britain's, plus a lower standard of living overall.
What? Britain outsourced their agriculture before the 20th century, their domestic agriculture that remained was focused only on the most productive land and richest farmers that were able to remain competitive with imports. Germany had agricultural tariffs to keep all farmers viable; on paper it looks then like German agriculture sucked, but in reality it was because even the most marginal land was still viable to keep in business, while only the best British land and farmers that could survive in a free agricultural trade environment still produced. So there were a lot fewer British farmers that were effectively the best the nation had, while German averages included a much larger swath of the population, but was a large enough sector to satisfy almost all of German food needs for strategic reasons (namely that they couldn't be starved out in the event of war, because they were susceptible to blockade), while the Brits were vulnerable to blockade, but their navy and geographic position meant that was highly unlikely. For national security reasons Germany had to maintain a much larger, but less overall efficient agricultural sector that Britain in constrast could largely do away with. Comparing the two is pretty pointless as a means of making a point about their relative industrial/economic situation, because they did what they did for very different reasons and didn't bear on the rest of the economy (beyond the potential of maintaining trade in wartime).
 
on paper it looks then like German agriculture sucked,

It also sucked in practice.

They were far behind the UK in mechanization, actually, not much better than the Russians. They were using oxen, even long after WWI. Nazis were more interested in trying to breed neo-aurochs than in making a 'Peoples Tractor'. examples like the late '30s Eicher were what the US had been doing in the early '20s.
 

Deleted member 1487

It also sucked in practice.

They were far behind the UK in mechanization, actually, not much better than the Russians. They were using oxen, even long after WWI. Nazis were more interested in trying to breed neo-aurochs than in making a 'Peoples Tractor'. examples like the late '30s Eicher were what the US had been doing in the early '20s.
In the aggregate sure, but comparing the best remaining British farms to the FAR larger and more diverse German sector is comparing GMO apples to wild grown oranges. In WW2 they were making efforts to fix their agriculture sector, but with limited resources they chose to prioritize rearmament for their tracked vehicles and fuel. In the end though during WW2 agriculture was the least of Germany's problems.
 
Germany had agricultural tariffs to keep all farmers viable; on paper it looks then like German agriculture sucked, but in reality it was because even the most marginal land was still viable to keep in business, while only the best British land and farmers that could survive in a free agricultural trade environment still produced. So there were a lot fewer British farmers that were effectively the best the nation had, while German averages included a much larger swath of the population, but was a large enough sector to satisfy almost all of German food needs for strategic reasons (namely that they couldn't be starved out in the event of war, because they were susceptible to blockade),

Well, there was a hunger winter, no? So obviously Germany's agriculture was not sufficient in wartime. It's one thing to have, for national security reasons, an agricultural sector which is self sufficient. But that doesn't mean it has to be inefficient and reliant on oxen.
 
Interestingly, in "The State and Business in the Major Powers: An Economic History 1815-1939," Germany's industrial output per head falls behind the UK. This is probably in part due to that huge agricultural sector, but it makes you think.

Edit: Christ. German agriculture was only half as productive as the British?
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, there was a hunger winter, no? So obviously Germany's agriculture was not sufficient in wartime. It's one thing to have, for national security reasons, an agricultural sector which is self sufficient. But that doesn't mean it has to be inefficient and reliant on oxen.
Are we talking about WW1 or 2? I'm getting confused here. The Hunger Winter was directly related to the gross mismanagement of the armaments expansion plan Ludendorff called the Hindenburg Program. The economy was balanced in 1916 until the demand for totally unrealistic industrial expansion plan resulted in a critical diversion of labor, coal, and rolling stock to build factories that there were not resources for and left too little coal and rolling stock to actually move food from the countryside to the cities. Meanwhile labor was diverted to construction projects so wasn't available for the harvest and coal mining, which the economy ran on. So it was a toxic combo that resulted in hunger. The situation improved dramatically in 1917-18 as Hindenburg Program was terminated and the economy properly rebalanced again, but then the US entered the war (again thanks to Ludendorff) and the blockade got a lot tougher, so German imports dried up, which, despite the recovery in food distribution, meant the additional stuffs gotten via neighboring neutral trade now was gone, which helped take the edge off rationing. Then the wear and tear on rolling stock and declining coal output from labor getting drafted to fight meant food distribution again became an issue; despite it being available it wasn't getting distributed properly due to rail issues. So during WW1 the problem was less food production, but mismanagement and then transportation. Even A-H had that issue in 1918 when thousands of tons of food rotted in rail cars for the lack of coal and locomotives to take it to the cities.

In WW1 though agriculture was pretty much animal based for all nations, tractors was a rarity. In WW2 lack of tractors was a more viable criticism, but again Germany had limited industrial resources to produce vehicles and that went to the army.
 

Deleted member 1487

Interestingly, in "The State and Business in the Major Powers: An Economic History 1815-1939," Germany's industrial output per head falls behind the UK. This is probably in part due to that huge agricultural sector, but it makes you think.

Edit: Christ. German agriculture was only half as productive as the British?
Per head probably. Again the Brits pretty much wiped out their agriculture sector and only the most productive survived international competition. So per farm they were extremely productive, but were a small part of the economy, while in Germany all quality of farms survived on government subsidies.
 
Per head probably. Again the Brits pretty much wiped out their agriculture sector and only the most productive survived international competition. So per farm they were extremely productive, but were a small part of the economy, while in Germany all quality of farms survived on government subsidies.

You keep assuming they are a small part of their economy just because they didn't employ a large number of people. That's sort of like saying America doesn't produce a lot of crops because agriculture employs so few people.

Maybe Britain imported most of its crops! But it'd be nice to see evidence.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
And Germany had a huge section of its population in backbreaking agriculture that was far less productive than Britain's, plus a lower standard of living overall.

Agreed. However, the German Empire was near self sufficient before ww1. German farmers made extensive use of chemical fertilizer. However, in ww1, fertilizer material were diverted to explosives, and labour was drawn into war.

Bonus: Britain also outperformed in service and light, consumer good industries.

But it seems that you could not argue against the fact that Germany was superior in most high tech engineerig industries.
 
But it seems that you could not argue against the fact that Germany was superior in most high tech engineerig industries.

I don't know. Depends on high tech. I think automatives count as "high tech" for instance, especially given the standard of the day. Britain's advantages in cryptanalysis and atomic weapons also suggest better physicists.
 
Top